The Uncounted Civilian Deaths In Iraq

Submitted by: holygod 3 months ago in News & Politics


Maybe the Iraqis hate us for our freedom, maybe they hate us because we bomb the fuck out of them and murder civilians.

Estimates range as high as 250,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since we invaded in 2003.

Imagine Greece invaded the U.S., killed Trump and his family, started bombing towns, going door to door with machine guns, and had tanks rolling down main street. Imagine a quarter of a million Americans were killed. Do you think we would greet them as "liberators." If we fought back would that make us "insurgents?"

The young men and women growing up in the midst of the invasion would view Greece as lifelong enemies, purveyors of death and evil, and vow to do whatever it took to kill greeks.

DO WE HONESTLY THINK THIS IS MAKING US SAFER?
There are 116 comments:
Male 65
People trying to maintain that the middle east have always been the enemy as justification for the millions of civilian deaths are a living breathing example how the novel 1984 and 'Minitruth' is extremely close to reality right now.

The middle east has been raped by the West, invaded constantly since the Crusades, and subsequently for oil since the turn of the 20th century. They are quite rightly fed up with it.

As for 'regime change', yes parts of the middle east are viewed as barbaric compared to modern western values.

But it wasn't so long ago that the US for instance was involved in industrial slavery and atrocities against black people of Africa and the Caribbean.

How would YOU feel if your country as a whole was attacked and invaded by say Canada and millions of your citizens were slaughtered because Canada felt you needed a regime change back then?? You would never forgive them, notwithstanding whether you ultimately believed slavery was right or wrong.

We have bombed the middle east for so long now, killed people's wives, husbands,  children, parents, bombed schools,  hospitals,  places of work, turning thriving communities into absolute rubble. 

And when a man who has suffered all of the above at the hands of the West has the audacity to come to the West and asks if he can find work because there's nothing left for him at home, the answer is a bid resounding 'no, fuck you, piss off back to where you came from!'.

And then we scratch our heads in bemusement at how these people become radicalised terrorists against the West. 

Fucking shameful. We should truly be ashamed.
2
Reply
Male 42,596
ImaginaryN Long before the Crusaders bubby. The Crusades were in response to Jihad and invasion by Muslim forces, remember? Before that were countless wars and invasions. What do you think the Romans were doing there in NT times? Vacationing?

Not since "the 20th century", go back about 3 millennia more... 4 even...

All things come from Allah, including pain and suffering. If 'the West' is so bad? WHY are millions of Arabs trying so damn hard to move there?
-2
Reply
Male 42,596
The Coalition did not kill Saddam, he was captured and tried by the following government. Your entire post is a fucking lie. 

And people complain about the "truthiness" of my posts? Wow. Why don't i see them wailing and gnashing their teeth over this obvious falsehood? Oh right: liberals!

Greece invading America? How would they pay for it? They're dead broke and begging for money every few years. What a joke.

Just overlook the invasion of Kuwait. Just overlook the UN! Overlook the endless violations and atrocities by Saddam after the cease-fire. All that matters is to blame Trump for this somehow, some way! Trump gets mentioned in a post about the two Iraq invasions by the UN, isn't that remarkable?
-1
Reply
Female 512
5cats Just overlook the weapons of mass... oh, wait.

Your view of the situation is incredibly naive and simplistic. 

The reason that the majority of people in the middle east hate the west isn't because of them hating 'our freedom' or any other propaganda bullshit. It's because, as the post says, the western--predominantly American--armies have been butchering their civilians for years. Look at Iraq. Is it any wonder they hate us? UN sanctions--led by the US--starved their families. Their children died in their thousands because the sanctions prevented medical equipment from entering the country. Despite what we knew about its effects, the troops--mainly American--used ordinance with depleted uranium, causing whole waves of cancers, mainly in children. Despite promising not to, air strikes destroyed infrastructure, denying the civilian population access to power and clean water, which we then failed to repair. American soldiers kill civilians with impunity, to such a degree that Paul Bremer had to pass a law making it impossible for an American to be tried for murder after they killed an Iraqi.

Iraqis hate us because we murdered countless numbers of them in cold blood.

The situation in Iraq should be seen for what it was. It was never a liberation. It was an occupation by a hostile and lawless force, and apart from the initial euphoria, the population only ever saw it as that. Of course they hate us. Wouldn't you hate us in their shoes?

There's a very very good book you really should read called The Great War for Civilisation by a British journalist called Robert Fisk. It'll open your eyes.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
DrCribbens Um, again I point out: there has been nations battling over the Middle East since the Ancient Egyptians. Islam itself is an invader, ok?

Islam hates us because we are infidels. ALL infidels must convert, obey (submit) or die. Plain and simple. Anything more is just icing on the cake.
0
Reply
Female 512
5cats So what if other people have invaded? How is that relevant? How does that change how the people of the Middle East view the west?

And I'm not talking about Islam either.

Your views are obviously informed by the republican propaganda and fake news being fed you by the MSM.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
DrCribbens You think the propaganda on the MSM is from the REPUBLICANS??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! Omg that's hilarious!

meanwhile? it is relevant because people everywhere get invaded, fight wars and other nasty stuff all the time. The Middle East is not unique, it's just more obvious.
It was not the UN sanctions that "starved families" it was SADDAM who refused to do what was right for his own people. He liked killing them, and liberation saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

But you've descended to insults, so I guess you've stopped thinking entirely anyhow.
0
Reply
Female 512
5cats No, you're right. I was forgetting about Donald Rumsfeld and George W Bush, those famous democrats. (Obviously Donald Rumsfeld's propaganda only started after he'd decided not to be friends with Saddam any more).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r42oejmpkgw

Although I take your point that Clinton was almost as bad.

And if you don't think that UN sanctions led to terrible privations for the ordinary Iraqi civilians then you're more naive than I thought. Just putting aside for the moment the fact that Saddam killed his own people with the full knowledge and co-operation of the US when he was useful to them (ever wondered where he bought the chemicals he used to manufacture the gas that massacred the Kurds?), the point of this thread is why the US is so reviled. Look at it from an ordinary Iraqi's point of view. His family is starving. His kid has leukaemia from depleted uranium shells and he can't get any treatment for it because the UN, at the insistence of the US, has banned the import of medical equipment. Who would you blame? 

And I can't apologise enough if you think I've descended to insults. I know from almost every post you've ever made that you'd never stoop that low yourself.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
DrCribbens I never once claimed in all my life that Republicans don't start wars. They do. It is the role of the Federal Government to do so if needed regardless of party.

The point of sanctions is to cause harm. That's the entire idea! Otherwise what good are they?
Again: Saddam could have ended ALL the UN sanctions by obeying the UN requirements, it is him who brought the suffering, not America.

Leukemia.. from artillery shells... you cannot be serious... no one is that stupid, right? Trillions of tonnes of sand and maybe 1 tonne of "depleted uranium dust" (and that's a MASSIVE overstatement) and it's killing thousands you claim?
- Do you know what 'depleted' even means?
- Do you know there's uranium (hot stuff! not depleted!) in almost all the sand and soil on Earth?
- Do you know what 'background radiation' means?
- How did these tank/ artillery crews survive for 5 hours in these hotbeds of lethal radiation known as M1A1 Abrams and the like?
- Are you claiming no one in Iraq ever had cancer or such before the two gulf wars?

Question: what excuse did the PLO terrorists who targeted Americans have back in the 70's? Because of America's invasion of Iraq some 20~odd years in the future?

If the UN does NOT have any right or duty to impose sanctions, then WHO DOES?
0
Reply
Female 512
5cats It's really difficult to give this subject the detail it deserves for someone so indoctrinated in propaganda on a place with so little room.

So, briefly:

* I didn't say anything about anyone starting wars. I merely mentioned the propaganda used to justify wars, which has mostly (but not exclusively) been from the republicans.
* By the time Bush had decided to go to war Saddam had actually started co-operating. That's why Bush was so intent on pulling the UN weapons inspectors out as quickly as possible. God forbid Saddam should start co-operating and Bush should lose his excuse for an invasion.
* Regardless of whether or not Saddam was co-operating, how is it OK to punish his helpless population for his actions? Don't forget, the US government were absolutely determined for the world to understand that they were acting as a liberating force on behalf of the Iraqi people. You can't have it both ways.
* The information about the effects of depleted uranium isn't mine. It comes from a lot of different sources, and your comments show a complete ignorance of the subject.

“The U.S. invasion of Iraq has left behind a legacy of cancer and birth defects suspected of being caused by the U.S. military’s extensive use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus.” Al Jazeera reporter Dahr Jamail

"From 2004 up to this day, we are seeing a rate of congenital malformations in the city of Fallujah that has surpassed even that in the wake of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that nuclear bombs were d’ pped on at the end of World War II.’” Democracy Now

“Thus last November, a group of British and Iraqi doctors petitioned the U.N. to investigate the alarming rise in birth defects at Fallujah’s hospitals. ‘Young women in Fallujah,’ they wrote ... are terrified of having children because of the increasing number of babies born grotesquely deformed, with no heads, two heads, a single eye in their foreheads, scaly bodies or missing limbs. In addition, young children in Fallujah are now experiencing hideous cancers and leukemias.’” 

etc etc

* Again, a sufficient answer to the PLO question would take up far more room and time than I have here, particularly as you would neither listen to nor understand it. I really really recommend reading The Great War for Civilisation by a very respected journalist called Robert Fisk who has spend almost his entire adult life living in and reporting on the Middle East. 

Which, of course, you won't. 
0
Reply
Male 42,596
DrCribbens 2: NO HE DID NOT. He pretended to co-operate then made the exact same death threats (and refusal of entry to key sites) to UN Inspectors and that was the valid reason for the second Gulf War. In no way, shape or form did actual co-operation occur: just the words, not the reality.
3: Talk to the UN about it Bro...
4: I have information from multiple sources that little green men in flying suacers visit us regularly.
Also that the Earth is Flat...
Bullshit that has no basis in science or reality is just plain bullshit. It is a stupid lie (fearmongering) to fool stupid people who don't even KNOW what the words mean! Like you for example.
It is absolutely impossible for depleted uranium to do any of the things you claim it does. All the chemicals released? All those oil fires set by Saddam? Stress? Those are far more likely to cause defects and sickness than INERT PARTICLES which aren't even 1 part per billion... per trillion!

Fucking Al Jizzera?? Oh totally factual and unbiased! NEXT.

No I won't read some propaganda from someone I've never heard of before. I have better things to do like... watch anime!
0
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats Trump gets mentioned? What are you blathering about? You mean the fact that I named our president? That is somehow offensive to you my little snowflake? Trust me, I wish he wasn't our president, but he is. Not sure how pointing that out is out of line.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod You are talking about events 20 or 30 years in the past... and mentioning Trump who had not one single thing to do with them.
Bush-1
Clinton
Bush-2
Obama
All those names and more DO have a connection. Not Trump in this discussion about pre-2017 events. It is your blind and unbridled hate that is out of line. That and the revisionist history...

Also Saddam killed at least 1 million of his own people, and another million over in Iran. You think that's A-OK to let that go on? While he makes WMDs to give to terrorists or use himself? As well as a nuclear weapons program too? It's all the west's fault eh? Amazing.
-1
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats Where did I mention Trump?
0
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod "Imagine Greece invaded the U.S., killed Trump..." Unless Fancy wrote that?

And you continue to ignore my point: the USA did not "kill Saddam" ok? But you never (well, almost never!) admit it when you're wrong, why should now be any different?
0
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats So I simply pointed out that Trump is the leader of the country. What does that have to do with anything? I in no way blames him for any of the mess in Iraq.

We didn't kill saddam? We just captured him and handed him over to a puppet government we installed to try and execute him under our guidance. Come on.

I don't think saddam was a good guy. The world is better off without him. Not sure why you are getting stuck on this point.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod Again: the US did not kill Saddam ok? If you're going to make up "equivalent" scenarios? Try to maintain relevance.

If China and Russia invaded America, arrested the president & etc. Not nonsensical like Greece...

For years now, decades even, the MSM has be fixated on finding ways to have "older white men" act like suicide bombers in TV, films, books & etc. It's laughable the extremes they go to, and no one buys it. Armed rebels? Sure, maybe that could happen. But nothing like Jihadists or the PLO... false moral equivalence based on fantasy isn't logical in the slightest.
0
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats I picked greece so it was clear it was an analogy. No country could invade the U.S.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod Canada did it... well the British Empire helped a little bit...

And why use nonsense to counter a perfectly valid argument: war = casualties. People die, innocent ones, in every war I can think of that lasted more than a week.

The USA is a world leader in limiting civilian casualties, few nations even come close. Instead of screaming in outrage you should be proud of the men and women in uniform.
0
Reply
Male 2,784
5cats 
"..Do you think we would greet them as "liberators." If we fought back would that make us "insurgents?"

The way I interpret the reference, is that Americans wouldn't stand for an invasion, or the death of their president by that invasion.

You would be correct that it isn't a spot-on comparison, as the American forces didn't kill Saddam, themselves.

However, it was the American occupation that forced him on the run, and American forces that captured him. It was a new government that only existed because of America, that tried and executed Saddam. America played a big part in his demise.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
There are literally 3 pictures here, one of which is clearly 'staged'. How about this:

http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.ca/2013/06/terrorism-attacks-continue-in-iraq.html


30 dead in a day in a series of bomb attacks aimed at civilians.
Until such time you can prove the Coalition deliberately targeted civilians for days and weeks on end? STFU.
War is hell.
-1
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats "war is hell"

Easy for you to say from the comfort of your computer chair 6,000 miles away you pathetic little chicken hawk. I doubt the civilians in Iraq feel so callous about it.
1
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod Then they shouldn't have started fighting :p

You think Canada doesn't know about war? WE were fighting BOTH World Wars long before your isolationist asses were...

Oooo! Insults! That sure proves your moral superiority! You got nothing but insults? Well just be quiet then.

Of course you are VERY quiet about the legitimate and simple questions and points I presented. You always are.
-1
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats You mean how you've been quiet on the Franken post after you were called out for saying 6 times that he SAID he touched her, when in fact he had said no such thing? Convenient how you just left that thread like a little bitch huh?
-1
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod He admitted he groped her. How is that NOT including he touched her? The MSM are "spinning" the notion that he didn't, but there's most likely more photographs we haven't seen that are definitive. HE knows what happened and has SAID he did it. 
People on that thread are wrong if they say it 6 times or 60:
WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED?

And back to the insults. Thanks for proving my point for me.
0
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats WHERE DID HE ADMIT HE GROPED HER?

Stop lying. Post a link to where he says he groped her or shut the fuck up. I'm sick of your constant stream of misinformation.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod He admits he did something wrong, he does NOT deny or dispute the groping. He DOES deny and dispute the kissing thing. See the difference? 

He admits it, it is right there in his letter thing. And ALL the MSM spin has been based on his "confession" which somehow clears him eh? Why don't you go argue with them?

Plus we don't know if there are more pictures which "erase all doubt' but HE knows. So he chose not to fight a battle where he'd be guaranteed to lose (should more pictures come out). Plus eyewitnesses too, they know but are so far silent.

Stop lying? This from a guy who says the USA 'killed Saddam' or that Gulf-2 was "over 9/11" and a host of other propaganda you puke out on a regular basis... Show me where he says he never physically touched her? HE says, not the talking parrots of the MSM. 

And it still doesn't matter: he abused her while she was unconscious, plain and simple. Touch or no touch? Still a violation of her rights.
0
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats he admits the picture is innapropriate. He does not once admit to "groping" or any physical contact as you have said at least 8 times.

Is it that hard for you to just admit you were wrong? I don't understand.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod He doesn't deny physical contact either. And it still doesn't matter, it doesn't even have to be a physical grope, correct? It's still wrong, it's still a violation, it's still (likely) a crime. So... you have nothing. I'm not wrong, easy to understand.
0
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats Stop. Just stop. Look at your comment 5 above this one:

"He admitted he groped her"

Can we agree that is not an accurate statement? Come on. This is very easy. There isn't ambiguity or wiggle room. It isn't subjective. You said something that simply is not true. Can't you be a man and own up to it?
0
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod He has not denied it at all. He has apologised for what he did. That's pretty much a confession, yes? Doesn't disagree that it happened and apologises for it = he did it!
Even if he didn't physically touch her? He still violated an unconscious person. That is an indisputable fact, yes?

You always try to split hairs when you're dead wrong, as if that would change anything. No, the gory details of EXACTLY HOW he wronged her aren't important: he did wrong her, a violation, end of story. Touch? No touch? SAME THING.

If you think one photo 'disproves' anything at all without taking into account the possibility of more photos, the eyewitnesses and Franken himself saying he did it? What happened before or after the photo? Can you say he never touched her based on a single split second? And many say the photo shows him in contact, no matter how small it is there. If you can say all that? Then have a nice day.

Oh, and your silence on several other topics in this thread is deafening: and you call me names? Ha.
0
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats 

"He admitted he groped her" that is not the same thing as "He has not denied it at all".

"Touch? No touch? SAME THING."

Are you fucking kidding me?

"Oh, and your silence on several other topics in this thread is deafening"

The thread is unwieldily and I can't keep track of where we are and the replied button isn't sending me to the comment anymore, just the page. You know I'll debate you all day, every day, but I've been busy today. I haven't commented on any posts except this one little bit.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod Is it a 'different offense' if he did or did not touch her? Is one an offence and the other "100% A-OK"? Is posing himself in this way without her consent (and then publishing the photo on top of that!) right or wrong?

Not really, no and wrong. Simple! Unless you think it's A-OK to do what he did to an unconscious person? What difference does it make what you CALL the crime? It's still a crime.

In no way shape or form does that photo 'prove' he never touched her. It sure looks like physical contact is being made... if anything it proves he did.

"I didn't 'J-walk' your Honour, I walked illegally in a straight line, like a capital 'I'"
"Case dismissed!"
Seriously?
0
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats

"Is it a 'different offense' if he did or did not touch her?"

Yes. One is sexual harassment, one is sexual assault. They are VERY different.

"Is one an offence and the other "100% A-OK"?"

No. They are both wrong.

"Is posing himself in this way without her consent (and then publishing the photo on top of that!) right or wrong?"

Wrong. I have said that REPEATEDLY on here.

"What difference does it make what you CALL the crime? It's still a crime."

Well littering and murder are also both crimes, but I think it's important to be able to differentiate between which is which.

"In no way shape or form does that photo 'prove' he never touched her. "

Correct, it does not. He may have anally raped her 30 seconds after the photo was taken. I'm just going based on the evidence provided.

"It sure looks like physical contact is being made"

Not to me.

""I didn't 'J-walk' your Honour, I walked illegally in a straight line, like a capital 'I'"
"Case dismissed!"
Seriously?"

That was unbelievably stupid.

Nothing above changes the fact that you said on at least 8 different occasions he said something he never said.

You said ""He admitted he groped her" when in fact he never said that. There isn't any interpretation here. This is black and white he said those words or he didn't. He didn't

The fact that you can't just admit it is indicative of some sort of sickness. This inability to own up to your mistakes is insanity.


0
Reply
Male 42,596
-1
Reply
Female 512
5cats So because Saddam was an evil bastard it's ok for us to behave the way we do? It's OK for us to torture and murder people as long as we're a bit less obvious about it?
0
Reply
Male 42,596
DrCribbens He tortured well over 100,000 people to death, including women and children. Easily 100,000 more permanently damaged and released as examples.
We 'tortured' a handful, who were combatants not civilians, who all survived essentially unharmed.

It isn't even close bubby. And no it isn't "ok" for us to use torture, that's why those who did it were PUNISHED, duh?
-1
Reply
Male 4,771
The hilarity of the post ignores the number of ammosexuals that DROOL over the prospect of america getting invaded so they can break out their walmart weapons and go to war (without actually having to leave the neighborhood)
1
Reply
Male 10,939
daegog for sure. That's what they're in the woods training for. 
1
Reply
Male 3,524
I could forgive Greece much if they came in here and killed Trump and his cronies.
I know they would not be here long, as they can run any damn thing into the ditch in short order.
0
Reply
Male 1,989
Did a quick google  "fiscal years 2011 through 2013, the military made 953 condolence payments totaling $2.7 million. $1.8 million of those were for deaths, and the average payment for a death was $3,426. Payments for injuries averaged $1,557". This is for Afghanistan only. You could talk about the amounts but as far as it goes we do make reimbursements for the loss of life and property. If you realy want you can look and see staits for the number of people we kill you will find it is a low number for the overall death rate from combat. So we do try to make it right and we do make a very real effort to not kill civilians at all and if the insurgents don't try to kill not only there own people but us to then maybe no one would get killed by our military remember we are not only there for our interests but for the best interest of them and the world in general.
1
Reply
Male 10,939
casaledana I'm guessing you didn't read the article right? The entire thing is about how the military is errantly calling civilian deaths combatant deaths. Those people don't even get the $3,400.
0
Reply
Male 10,939
casaledana Cool. I'll kill your daughter and then give you $3,400. That makes us square right?
0
Reply
Male 1,989
holygod You are so funny if I had a daughter and you killed her and tried to pay me off with $3,400 hundred I'd laugh in your face, seeing that that would be flat out murder and thank you for the threat. But if you had any common since you would know I would put the police on you and  the cost of living is much more here and would not take less then your life or not less then a million dollars because that's what her worth is in America and that's what a really nice house costs. Some one in there governments and the U.S. have decided that that is a reasonable payment.  Aside from the fact that we are under no obligation to make any retribution. Oh ya and lets not forget the last administration sitting on it ass and letting ISIS take over again causing all the new fighting going on now. Just think of how many people would not have lost there head because of that. How much restitution you think is getting payed for that?
1
Reply
Male 4,771
holygod well biblically he could rape your daughter for 13$ (the equivalent of 50 shekels, not sure if the bible wants us to account for inflation) so 3400 is a goddamn steal.
0
Reply
Male 10,939
daegog after he rapes my daughter she has to marry him too though right?
0
Reply
Male 4,771
holygod Well it would just be silly if he didnt, AND he can't divorce her either, so she has that to look forward to.
0
Reply
Male 1,698
So I read all the comments and nobody addressed the fact the al your momma, I slipped in the sand and all these other wonderful extremist organizations have a documented history of putting their headquarters, leaders or whoever the fuck you care to name in with innocents. You bombed a school! There were 100 wanted terroists in the basement! It’s just BS no matter where you go with this. I hurt for the innocents. I don’t hurt for the countries people’s that let these animals run their lives. Every one has to sleep sometime. If they’re in your village, when they’re sleeping, cut off their balls. Teach your daughters, wives and goats to bite their dicks off when the rape happens. Ok maybe not the goats. But do you see what I’m saying? Don’t be the victim.
1
Reply
Male 6,092
scheckydamon Schecky, you may have hit upon the next secret DARPA project... a battalion of goats specially bred and trained to bite the enemy's dicks off. O.O  "Auugghh! RUN FOR YOUR JUNK! They've released the dick-biting goats!"
0
Reply
Male 1,698
squrlz4ever Here in SC it's the goats that run away if you get my drift. Nudge Nudge Wink Wink.
1
Reply
Male 6,092
scheckydamon LOL. Schecky, you are very baa--a-a-a-a-a-a-a-ad!
-1
Reply
Male 10,939
scheckydamon Similar to when America revolted against the British during the Revolutionary war and troops would routinely stay in farmhouses, churches, schools, etc?
-1
Reply
Male 1,698
holygod Everything is fair in Love and War? And if they hadn't? We all be singing God Save the Queen, while taking a knee of course. 
1
Reply
Male 10,939
We've spent over $3 Trillion on wars in Afghanistan, syria, and Iraq since 2001. Imagine if we would have spent that money in those countries on infrastructure, education, and industry. We could have provided the means for them to get out of the stone age instead of bombing them back to it. 
2
Reply
Male 740
holygod The US has the greatest military in the world, which requires upkeep. If the military were not to be used in Iraq/Syria/Afghanistan, its cost would still be substantial just sitting on their asses. Or was there a better place to use military might at the time? 
I like the fact that the military is helping out with the natural disasters now. 
1
Reply
Male 10,939
boredhuman Disaster relief is a great use of the military. Peace keeping is good. Humanitarian aid is good. Put a shovel or hammer in their hand and let them help with infrastructure and rebuilding. Hell, pretty much anything that doesn't involve killing people.
-1
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod Look how well that works in Somalia! The terrorists there have totally lay down their arms and embraced Western Values!
Oh wait, they have done no such thing.
The West has been pumping aid into Somalia since before 'We Are The World' and nothing has changed...

Other than the Marshall Plan? Where has 'give them everything they want' worked? I just read about the other option besides that plan: culling 1/3 of the surviving German population through mass starvation... :-/ Marshall saved millions of lives.
(and UK and France received most of the aid too... allies not enemies)
-1
Reply
Male 748
holygod Give them money, then let them buy stuff from us.  I bet we would all be far better off.
1
Reply
Male 41,418
If you make war nice and comfy with no casualties there is no reason to avoid it in the future.
Make it hurt and people think twice.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
Gerry1of1 If only the Americans had just 'sucked it up' after 9/11 and ignored the terrorists. They'd have thousands upon countless thousands more terrorists today than they do now! They'd frolic in peace and harmony and would not harm a fly, right?

This is bullshit, the people used as human shields don't count against American kills: they are the responsibility of the other side.
This counts every single civilian as being killed by Americans? What about all those bombs the terrorists set off in markets and civilian areas? What about all the murders, be-headings and the like? All count against America, not against the Taliban or AQ or all the rest. They do this all the time with Israel, counting those killed BY Hamas as being killed by the IDF.
Typical. Liberal. Revisionist. Bullshit.
-1
Reply
Male 4,236
I just heard a story on NPR on the way home today about this.  Guy lost his wife, daughter and brother all because it was assumed no women or children where there and it was a possible target due to bad intel.  It took him 1 1/2 years to prove the US screwed up. Luckily he had help from a group looking into undocumented civilian deaths, he could speak English, he lived in the US previously and he had a cousin who was a professor at Purdue to help him.  Imagine how many did not have these connections and suffered the same fate.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
kalron27 Because the terrorists always double check to make sure NO women, children or other non-combatants are in the target area before they set off a bomb or fly an aircraft into a building.
We should follow their example, yes?
-1
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats Terrorists attacked us and we attacked a country. It would be like if the KKK attacked england and then england responded by attacking the united states.

Actually, since Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 It would be like if the KKK attacked England and then England responded by attacking Guatemala.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod Iraq was invaded the second time for violations of the Cease Fire Agreement. This was passed by the UN. Also for still actively supplying and financing international terrorism (NOT AQ though, other ones). All those other 'excuses' trotted out were window dressing. The sizzle on the steak.

Do not confuse the map with the terrain.

And don't re-write history to suit your current political purposes.
-1
Reply
Male 8,522
When we use the Military what do we expect?  The military is made to blow shit up and kill.  We are using it to solve all sorts of problems.  Once again it's like our gun culture, when all we have are hammer's all the problems look like nails.
-1
Reply
Male 273
normalfreak2 When the military says "engage", it means pull the trigger.  Sounds nicer.
1
Reply
Male 740
normalfreak2 US is also a nation of laws. If there are no clear laws to pay out the victims of collateral damage, the military is not going to do it. 
1
Reply
Male 5,649
The label insurgents has always bugged me. If another country did a preemptive strike on the US there would be very few people who would not pick up a weapon and fight for our country.
1
Reply
Male 41,418
It's war. People die in war, even civilians. That's why we should try to avoid it. But when you can't avoid it you shoot to win.  We're heroes in WWII bombing Berlin, but villains now bombing Iraq ?


0
Reply
Male 740
Gerry1of1 "But when you can't avoid it you shoot to win."
And what does this "win" look like? 
If in shooting one bad guy the collateral damage produces another bad guy, the shooting is pointless. 
1
Reply
Male 41,418
boredhuman The win looks like our relationship with Germany and Japan. Kicked their buts until they didn't want to confront us any more. Now they are allies.

But how about this new kind of no-casualty war..... Afghanistan is not our ally. Nor Iraq. I doubt they ever will be at this rate. Just gives them justification.
-1
Reply
Male 740
Gerry1of1 "Kicked their buts until they didn't want to confront us any more." How is this different from being a play-ground bully? 
And is that the reason they're our allies now? 

Fighting terrorism isn't the same as fighting nations.
1
Reply
Male 1,680
boredhuman "Fighting terrorism isn't the same as fighting nations."
No, it's not. it's infinitely more difficult, bloody and hated by those that are only ever shown the civilian casualties by the same terrorists we are trying to stop, because they intentionally put those same civilians in harm's way.
1
Reply
Male 10,939
squidbush After 50 years of creating terrorists while we fight terrorists you'd think we'd learn our lesson. The way to get people to stop hating us is to help them, not bomb them. 
-1
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod The Muslims have been fighting the 'west' for hundreds of years. They do not NEED an excuse, their holy scripture orders them to do so.
Hundreds of Millions of them hate us, and will continue to hate us until we convert, submit or die. There is no compromise, no negotiations.
-1
Reply
Male 740
5cats Let's see if we turn it around, does it still make sense? 
"The Christians have been fighting the 'middle east' for hundreds of years. They do not NEED an excuse, their holy scripture orders them to do so.
Hundreds of Millions of them hate us, and will continue to hate us until we convert, submit or die. There is no compromise, no negotiations." -
5cats's evil Muslim twin
0
Reply
Male 42,596
boredhuman Except the NT does not command Christians to do anything like that. So... fuck no. You lost, next?
-1
Reply
Male 740
5cats Old Testament has so many colorful descriptions of violence in God's name. I can't see your evil Muslim twin ignore them! Still, here's New Testament:
"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)
5cats evil Muslim twin would surely quote the Qur'an:
“There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.” (Qur'an: 2:256)
Jesus sends a sword; Qur'an has NO RELIGIOUS COMPULSION - that's it. End of discussion. Evil Muslim 5cats wins.
No need to have nuanced comparison of violence in the scriptures. It's over! 
0
Reply
Male 42,596
boredhuman NT = New testament, the one the Christians follow. If you want to talk about Jews then start a new conversation ok?

There are hundreds of contradictory verses in the Quran, thus many interpretations. Usually the newer one takes precedent. But you cannot DENY there are lots of verses which EXPLICITLY COMMAND the death of infidels, especially Jews, correct?

And not one word from Jesus says anything remotely like "go kill those bastards is God's Name!" correct? That's the fucking SWORD of the SPIRIT (in this case: scripture too) you moron, holy cow you don't know basic religion and try to debate it? "Put on the whole armour of God" And He's talking about upending the religious beliefs of Judaism, not violent resistance to Roman Occupation... gah! Read the rest of the passage and it says this clearly.

"for all who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52) Here He talks about a physical sword, and tells His disciple to put it away.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-sword.html

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-meaning-of-Matthew-10-34-36
-1
Reply
Male 740
5cats ...The debate with evil Muslim 5cats would continue with noting that you don't know the Qur'an. Point out contradictions in the New Testament. Chastise you for swearing. Then chastise you for so willingly rejecting New Testament as holy scripture. And after a few more rounds of throwing insults, both come out of the conversation having confirmed original beliefs.

Yes, I'm well aware of the passage and it's context. If you were to follow the link, you'd see refutation of many claims of violence in the bible including this one. 

I'm not debating religion. I'm trying to show that this is not a productive way of discussing religion. The goal isn't to "win" - it's to gain some understanding. A more productive way would be to actually try to put yourself in another person's shoes.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
boredhuman Compare and contrast Jesus's actions with those of Mohammed: I think that says it all, yes?
- How many wives did Jesus have? 1 maybe? Mohammed had well over 10, plus slaves he impregnated too.
- How many people did Jesus murder with his own hands? 0. Mohammed's kills were legion.
- How many people did Jesus order put to death? 0. Mohammed ordered the deaths of countless thousands of civilians, including women and children, deliberately.

And etc. Islam is a violent religion founded by a violent prophet in a violent culture. It isn't a 'flaw' it is a feature!

Our goal is to preserve and promote our society. Not to submit to barbarians like ISIL and AQ.
0
Reply
Male 740
5cats To be clear, are you really rejecting the Old Testament as Christian holy scripture? Don't bother debating religion - evil Muslim 5cats isn't impressed. 

"Our goal is to preserve and promote our society." And Muslims' goal is to preserve and promote their society. You don't really believe ISIL and AQ speak for Muslims of the world, do you? 
0
Reply
Male 392
holygod I truly wish you were right. To a degree you are helping people is good and can build good will. In war it doesn't work. Win then help, people will respect us more by bringing stability than by trying to kill only the bad guys. Remember when we try to avoid civilian deaths it means we are leaving the bad alive to do terrible things to people. 
0
Reply
Male 4,771
taxidriver That's the point taxi, YOU CANNOT WIN.  You cannot kill all the "bad guys" because they all have family and freinds and when you kill them, the family and friends become "bad guys", the cycle is never ending.

There is no win for the US in the middle east.  There possibly could have been, back before we literally ruined the middle east by getting rid of their elected leader and installing the shah.  We were soo scared of the Russians, we couldn't trust the Iranians to run their own country so we fucked it right up.

We have made this shitcake and now we have to eat it.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
daegog So go there and surrender. Fuck. Enjoy your be-heading or being set on fire. You richly deserve it.
-1
Reply
Male 10,939
Gerry1of1 In one instance we were bombing people because their country was committing genocide, invading other countries, and trying to take over the world.

In the other instance we invaded a country that had nothing to do with an attack on our country where a handful of guys flew a plane into a building because, wait for it, they didn't want our military in their country.

We thought a good solution to that was to send our military into a bunch more countries...

We're just setting the stage for history to repeat itself.
0
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod Islam is trying to take over the world. They are required to try to by Allah or they will burn in hell for all eternity. Period, end of story.

If you think otherwise? You disagree with hundreds of millions of Muslims. Germany had what? 90 million population total? This is many times that...

You think Iran isn't going to use those Nuclear Weapons that Obama gave them for free? Even paid for them to make more? You think they call you the Great Satan because it's a 'cute nick-name' or something?
-1
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats So you think hundreds of Muslims are terrorists?

"You think they call you the Great Satan because it's a 'cute nick-name' or something?"

I think they call us the great satan because we invade and bomb muslim lands and kill muslims and have been for decades.

I'm guessing your understanding of the Quran is limited to whatever breitbart says about it. You ever read it? You ever talk to a muslim about their beliefs? Are you aware Allah is the judeo-christian god? You know Jesus is a central figure to their religion and is mentioned in the Quran 93 times?
1
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod Hundreds of millions DO support terrorism, Sharia and such things. Yes, it's a cold hard fact. They may not themselves BE terrorists, but through encouragement, aid and finance they support it openly.

I have gone to the source and checked many contentious passages: always the 'negative sayers' are correct and the 'apologists' are really stretching things beyond reason. One or 2 minor (trivial) exceptions.

Fuck that lie again? Fuck you never learn.

Jesus is only another prophet. He is NOT the Son Of God which is what Christianity is based on. Mohammed DELIBERATELY included aspects of Judaism and Christianity in order to discredit them. Duh!
Just like LDS did, again Duh.
-1
Reply
Male 10,939
5cats "gone to the source" you mean the book itself? Ya it's filled with horrible shit. So is the bible. That doesn't mean Jews and Christians are out there stoning everyone to death.
-1
Reply
Male 42,596
holygod The NT is filled with what now? Oh that's right, Jesus strangling people with his bare hands and ordering entire cities put to death, I almost forgot how many people Jesus slaughtered...

And Jesus said: "Pick up that stone and kill that bitch!" And then gathered stones for everyone to throw at her, totally!
0
Reply
Male 41,418
holygod We did not bomb Germany because the committed genocide. Most people were totally unaware of that. It's true, but not the reason we were at war. 
2
Reply
Male 10,939
Gerry1of1 I think people were aware, not the extent of it, but they were aware. Newspapers were reporting on Hitler's "final solution" in the late 30s and early 40s and certainly FDR and those in charge of the military knew. However I agree that wasn't a driving force in us doing it. Certainly is a driving force in our hindsight regard as heroes.
0
Reply
Male 4,771
Gerry1of1 Well, ya see Germany did declare war on the US, that's a minor difference.
-1
Reply
Male 42,596
daegog You are truly an idiot...

There was America, minding its own business since 1919. Not imposing embargoes, selling weapons illegally, sending troops to China or Spain and never even 'lending' fleets of ships and aircraft to the enemies of Germany. Fuck no! Germany and Japan had nothing to complain about from the things like the 5:5:3 treaty or the like...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty

Your common core level of education sickens me...
-2
Reply
Male 4,771
5cats Did i upset you by talking about your beloved nazis?  What a shame.  Im sure you think the Nazis were right to declare war on the US, that changes nothing.

How was your papa john's pizza today?
-1
Reply
Male 42,596
daegog Much like your mother's cunt: dry and only $5 a pop.
-1
Reply
Male 41,418
daegog Whoever starts it, you're in it to win it or just give up now.
0
Reply
Male 4,771
That 250k civilian deaths in iraq sounds pretty damn low, i would have guessed it to be much larger.
-1
Reply
Male 42,596
daegog Saddams torture prisons killed far more actually, about double that.
Torture. Prisons. One was specifically for women and children under age 12...

But hell! We're the criminals for deposing the 'duly elected' leadership of a nation who invades its neighbors and supports terrorism, right? Saddam won 99.9% of the vote, free and fair! Right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War

You are disgustingly ignorant.
-2
Reply
Male 10,939
daegog It could be much, much higher.

When the military bombs a building they tend to just count all the dead as combatants even if some are civilians. That's what the article is about.
-1
Reply
Male 7,843
what do you expect, of course the nation housing the world's #1 terrorist regime is going to lie about its actions to make itself look good.

It just takes 4 simple words, chanted over and over, folks:

  1. DEATH
  2. TO
  3. THE
  4. PRESIDENCY

-5
Reply
Male 9,021
monkwarrior It just takes 4 simple words, chanted over and over, folks

You chant a lot of words over and over, and all it is is annoying bullshit.
8
Reply
Male 10,939
megrendel lets just completely ignore him. Let him talk his inane insanity to himself. Maybe he'll go away.
1
Reply
Male 1,186
holygod don't feed the troll
1
Reply
Male 7,843
megrendel because you're upset your nation is in freefall.
-2
Reply
Male 10,939
megrendel best just to ignore him. I'm done with him. It's way too obnoxious.
4
Reply
Male 7,843
holygod Still suffering from your Dunning-Kruger, huh?
-2
Reply
Male 1,531
megrendel It gets extremely boring doesn't it?
3
Reply
Male 10,939
lockner01 lets just completely ignore him. Let him talk his inane insanity to himself. Maybe he'll go away.
2
Reply
Male 1,531
holygod I completely agree.
0
Reply
Male 7,843
0
Reply
Male 1,680
lockner01 it's starting to sound like background buzzing.
2
Reply
Male 7,843
squidbush then try silence it: https://tips.fbi.gov
0
Reply
Male 1,680
monkwarrior the FBI doesn't care about trolls.
1
Reply
Male 7,843
squidbush nor those they fear greatly.
0
Reply